Shared publicly  - 
How will you be affected by the law passed to avert the "fiscal cliff"? Our interactive graphic shows the impact on different types of Americans:
dietwald claus's profile photoHollis Bradshaw's profile photoMichael Porter's profile photoLisa Swink's profile photo
Why does it jump from a low 30-40k for a couple to a high 150k for an individual? Why not include a modest 60k individual income, which probably applies to a lot of your audience.
+Kevin Lambert Especially since the retired 30-40k couple wouldn't be affected by the payroll tax increase...
So much of the debate was highly-polarized and focused on extremes that I'm not surprised. +1 for more spread on the breakdown, however.
Interesting how many times Barack promised no tax raises on middle class...
+Daniel Flick It was a lie the moment it left his lips since the President doesn't pass tax legislation and has limited influence on the Congress (as we've seen in the last few weeks... uh... I mean years).
It amazes me that the GOP throws the whole country under the bridge just for political reasons, yet Republicans try to blame Obama for the lack of being able to do anything because of their total disregard for the good of the public.
Whats more interesting is that congress wad slated for a $900 pay raise. What have they sacrificed during this time? 
+Robert Koster It is still more than anyone paid for the last 2 years, so it will be perceived as a tax increase, and I stand by my comment that the President can't promise to perform acts reserved for the Congress. Any statement he makes otherwise is misleading at best.
+Robert Koster Would you also say that the increase from 35% to 39.6% is not a raised tax? If not, you're being inconsistent.

In any case, Obama did say that people making under $250k wouldn't see their taxes increase (note that he didn't use the term 'raise'), even in payroll taxes. This is now wrong. []

(note: I'm not trying to add any of my own opinion here, so don't start debating me about whether this is fair or not)
+Matt Soave although there were a few true tax increases, using Robert's logic, the raise in rates for those making over $400k is simply an expiration of another temporary tax break (Bush tax cuts) and would not be a tax increase, in the strictest sense. 
+Eric Henry You're right; I meant that this has been still been referred to as a tax raise in the sense that it's the opposite of keeping the tax cuts for the middle class, which has itself been described as "not raising taxes."
+Robert Koster, You're point is well-taken, but after 2 years of no payroll tax and 10 years of Bush-era tax cuts, the American people will perceive this as a tax increase regardless of how silly it is in logical terms. Obama and the Congress realize full well how this is perceived by so many, and that's one of the reasons the debate is so heated. If I have adapted my monthly spending to a certain level for 48 straight months, it will be felt if that changes.
Ah, the government is the landlord now. It owns the land, the houses, the businesses, everything. We should be grateful it doesn't charge 100% of our income, since our income basically belongs to the government. 
The best thing would be, of course, for the government to set up an Office of Needs and Means, and distribute whatever people need, according to plan, and assign the production of means to everybody - according to their abilities, of course. 
Makes sense to me. And, would be logically consistent. 
Sad but, remember them all next Election, they are above us all/the laws that they inflict on us that are not enforced ie. Gun laws.
Gun laws not enforced?  What does that have to do with this article, AND, what is not enforced?  Might you be a little more specific?
Americans may be lucky Iowa why do they pic? lo?ts of insecure uneducated farmets. R the soy picked Iowaw?nwhy s 
Add a comment...